An admitted killer who became a police agent in the Surrey Six case is a terrifying, despicable, monster motivated by self-preservation and a payout of almost a million dollars, a defence lawyer for accused killer Matt Johnston said Wednesday.
Brock Martland urged Justice Catherine Wedge to reject the evidence of the former Red Scorpion, who can be identified only as Person Y.
Y testified that Johnston confessed his role in the Oct. 19, 2007 slaughter after jumping into Y’s vehicle outside a Coquitlam apartment building later that night.
And Y wore a wire for police in early 2008, getting Johnston to provide some details about the slaughter of rival drug trafficker Corey Lal, his brother Michael, associates Ryan Bartolomeo and Eddie Narong and bystanders Chris Mohan and Ed Schellenberg.
Martland argued in closing arguments that Y’s testimony at the trial of Johnston and co-accused Cody Haevischer was memorable and entertaining, though not believable.
“He was simultaneously terrifying, despicable to use his own word, a monster to use a word that appears in the Crown’s submission and yet capable of being articulate and occasionally charming,” Martland said.
“He veered from being tired and confused and uncertain to being highly animated and even angry.”
Y admitted his lengthy criminal history in court, including two murders for which he is now serving life in prison.
And he claimed that he had agreed to kill the target of the murder plot – Corey Lal – but backed out when he learned that Johnston, who he didn’t like, was also going to be involved.
Instead, Y told the court he gave a small Glock to a man known as Person X, who has pleaded guilty to shooting three of the victims.
Martland said it’s not logical that a sophisticated organized criminal like Y would act like “a bungling incompetent who gives his gun away to someone in a murder scheme knowing his DNA’s all over it because he’s just been at the gym with it clipped to his boxer shorts.”
He said when Y offered his help to police in late 2007, he was “living on borrowed time” because so many people wanted to kill him.
Martland noted that “outrageous and oversized benefits were paid using public funds to this admitted multi-murderer.”
He said Y received close to $1 million, including a $140,000 car, a monthly stipend, as well as trips to Brazil and Mexico before he went to jail, on top of $472,000 for his lawyers.
“We say that the oversize benefits are staggering,” Martland said, adding that Y was motivated to lie for such a large payout.
Martland also said Y admitted to lying in an earlier trial and acknowledged his own mental health and addiction issues while on the stand.
Even with some evidence the Crown said corroborates Y’s testimony, “it is not enough to overcome the debilitating problems in this witness’ account,” Martland said.
Earlier Wednesday, Haevischer’s lawyer Simon Buck said the Crown was wrong to suggest that his client’s “post-offence conduct” proved murder.
The Crown pointed to evidence that Haevischer helped destroy evidence after the six murders as proof of his role in the plot and executions.
But Buck said that the post-offence conduct alleged could mean several things.
“In the present case, the evidence of post-offence conduct is equally consistent with the offence of manslaughter, robbery or being an accessory to an offence,” Buck said.
Johnston’s legal team will continue final submissions Thursday and Friday before the Crown responds.
The high-profile trial is now expected to conclude next week.

Speaking to an earlier argument put by “toontca” or whoever that person is (who has seemingly left this blog in a huff) about the tenure of judges, I was under the impression that Ian Mulgrew focused on the court system and surrounding legal issues. So why would you, Kim, be expected to philosophize and study this particular aspect of the justice system? No doubt you have some thoughts, but don’t we all?
Mind you Vaughan Palmer has waded into the legal aid underfunding battle so maybe things have changed….

I am a reporter and I am not writing editorials or columns about the court system and/or judges in particular. But as someone who spends a lot of time in courts, I will try to dispel myths and generalizations that are not based in facts. That’s all I was trying to do with Toontca.

It’s not suspicious at all. It’s normal. There is a pre-trial publication ban as there is in ALL cases. So we can’t say what’s happening (including with the other defendants.) But we can/still/will cover the trial.

i said it from day 1!!!! they would get off! no way will they get 1st or 2nd degree!! conspiracy at the most…. out in 1 or 2 yrs after dead time…. These lawyers are champs! gotta love BC, sorry to Ms. Mohan, she’s gonna be disapointed after all the plead out n rats! it was all a big scheme from the get go in my opinion

Can you please comment about the fact that judges are positioned for life?

Do you agree with this?
Cause I will gamble that most readers here DO NOT.
As stated in your last post, Kim…

I (calmly) request you do an article about judges keeping their seats for life, regardless of public opinion, or outcry. Regardless of mistakes made.
If I made @$300k on the public purse, and continually fucked up, I would be FIRED.
There is many examples on record for you to pull from.
What… (other than writing our local MP) do you suggest?
I find this job for life garbage, an insult to all of us.
Oh and Cody walks and Matt fries…

Our Prime Minister wants to change the Senate,
Supreme Court says NO. not happening.
Quebec is def over stretching it’s welcome…
Judges in BC are letting criminals walk…
Should we accept this as the new norm?

When will your editors let journalists start answering REAL SCOOP questions from the public?
This status queue, don’t rock the boat stuff is crazy.
Re-print or simply regurgitate AP stuff won’t keep your paper alive.
Even Blanchford has quieted her tone in the that year…
There is a massive change happening here in the news world.
Still the public demands a proper press.

I respect you Kim, that is clear,
But where can we get any answers?
We all depend on (you) all journalists you ask these questions on our behalf.
I ask you a question… I get a link.
I ask ICBC about something, they refer me to the website….
I ask my MP, I get a generic response via email….
Where has the human response / accountability gone?

When I did my PhotoJ @ Western, I was taught to ask hard questions…
Something is not right here…
And I would bet all the journalists know it…

When did you do photo journalist at Western? That’s where I did my masters. Of course we ask hard questions. But your basic premise is wrong. Where the empirical evidence that judges in B.C. are acquitting people at some huge rate? I have seen many people get convicted and some get acquitted. That happens across the country. You can have an opinion about the courts, but unless you’re sitting in each and every trial, it won’t necessary be an informed opinion. As for the hard questions, I just did a 5-part series about unsolved murders where myself and a colleague spent months collecting the data, then demonstrated that BC has a higher charge approval standard than anywhere in the country. And I put that to politicians, police, etc. We got a good public response including a call to change the BC standard to match the rest of the country. So please don’t suggest I’m not doing my job. It is NOT my job as a reporter/journalist to throw out my opinions about each and every case. I’m not a columnist like Christie Blatchford is. And the reason I sent you a link to the Canadian Judicial Council is because you were wrong in saying judges are appointed for life (they retire at age 70) AND in saying there is no complaint process (THERE IS.)

one sided points … there are many good reasons for judges and senators appointed for life – mainly that they should be more cognizant to long term implications of short term thinking … the debate is too large to even start on kims crime blog, but your assumptions that you speak for ‘we’ and highlight some good points to make generalizations of the underlining systems and short term issues and problems makes my head shake and i am glad ‘you’ dont speak for ‘me’

If you’re truly a journalist toontca you would realize that crime is way down in Canada and putting everyone in jail does not make our streets safer and costs taxpayers a ton. You should realize the media will always promote stories that bring in readers and viewers, thus crime reports. The reality is totally different and the judges know this. The judges are doing a great Job and the government needs to provide more resources to the courts and legal profession. Don’t base your opinions on crime through the media.

I was being facetious (and therefore not feeling sensitive!)and was responding to the comment suggesting the media was distorting the truth about crime stats so we could get readers. I strongly disagree with that. I do agree that defence lawyers have a job to do.

one example … insite … anyone and everyone who studies it believes in this approach … the cons? did everything to shut it down … thankfully the courts were there to stop them and it continues to benefit us today despite the short term political view by the cons and there supporters …

if the judges were on short term voting lists? probably wouldnt take as hard a stand and just shut it down cause it wouldnt be ‘worth’ the political onslaught they would have to fight in their reelection if we went that route …

lots of good arguments on both sides and all i hope for is anyone actually interested in the points dont get emotional with a few mob mentality examples to exploit the underlining systems ….

wonder what sort of car he got to drive, prob in montreal or toronto, acting like a big shot, trying to get laid… but all the while knowing your a snitch and a fraud to THE GAME and your a shit person out to save your own skin after taking the lives of others, but he was able to live with all his past crimes, just shows what a shit person he is… human is not a word, monster is a fair description…

The witness is a “terrifying despicable monster motivate by self preservation”?
Howis that different from the defendants, who are sitting on the chairs saying nothing? They’re monsters too. That’s why they hung with this guy Le and KM and Bacon for years. Two of them are serving time. Is defence trying for Havischer and Johnston being nice kids just pulled into the wrong crowd?